Ayers vs. Errors: Defending Climate Science

Dr Greg Ayers, Director of Meteorology of the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, courageously defended climate science in his February 2011 testimony before the Australian Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee. Please download the testimony (.pdf) and scroll to page EC100. Dr. Ayers clearly and forcefully showed why Ian Plimer is not a purveyor of truth. A good summary of the testimony can be read at ABC: The Drum Unleashed.

Climate science is under attack by a vanishingly small number of scientists but who carry very large megaphones. We need more courageous individuals such as Drs. Ayers and Santer to defend its honor against those that play fast and loose with the truth.

You need to understand that Andrew began with the assumption that these 850 papers actually refuted AGW and that they came from peer-reviewed journals that are respected. That assumption, of course, is quite generous.

The bottom line is that the number of actual scientists that do not think humans are causing global warming is vanishingly small and virtually every international body of science has a position statement that essentially supports the IPCC WGI (2007) conclusion that humans are driving most of the modern warming.

“You need to understand that Andrew began with the assumption that these 850 papers actually refuted AGW and that they came from peer-reviewed journals that are respected.”

This is an absolutely false claim the list has always stated,

“The following papers support skepticism of AGW or the negative environmental or socio-economic effects of AGW.”

The word Alarm was added to the title to be more clear but I never held any such assumption.

“The bottom line is that the number of actual scientists that do not think humans are causing global warming is vanishingly small and virtually every international body of science has a position statement that essentially supports the IPCC WGI (2007) conclusion that humans are driving most of the modern warming.”

No poll of the international scientific community was ever done to support such claims.

Not all scientific organizations have a position statement in support of the IPCC, some of that “support” comes from a single signature by the president of the organization to a document in support of AGW in some form. Regardless none of these organizations membership bodies were ever polled to determine membership support for such positions. Thus you can claim nothing more that the president and for position statements a majority of the council members.

The journal’s editor, Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, a reader in geography at the University of Hull, in England, says she sometimes publishes scientific papers challenging the view that global warming is a problem, because that position is often stifled in other outlets. “I’m following my political agenda — a bit, anyway,” she says. “But isn’t that the right of the editor?”
– Richard Monastersky in the Chronicle of Higher Education (3 Sep 2003).
—————
Guardian
25th February 2011Real Climate faces libel suit

“I’m not ashamed to say that I deliberately encourage the publication of papers that are sceptical of climate change,” said Boehmer-Christiansen
[…]
“I would personally not credit any article that was published there with any useful contribution to the science,” [Schmidt] told the Guardian. “Saying a paper was published in E&E has become akin to immediately discrediting it.” He also describes the journal as a “backwater” of poorly presented and incoherent contributions that “anyone who has done any science can see are fundamentally flawed from the get-go.”

As an example, Schmidt points to an E&E paper that claimed that the Sun is made of iron. “The editor sent it out for review, where it got trashed (as it should have been), and [Boehmer-Christiansen] published it anyway,” he says.

The journal also published a much-maligned analysis suggesting that levels of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide could go up and down by 100 parts per million in a year or two, prompting marine biologist Ralph Keeling at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography in La Jolla, California to write a response to the journal, in which he asked: “Is it really the intent of E&E to provide a forum for laundering pseudo-science?”

Schmidt and Keeling are not alone in their criticisms. Roger Pielke Jr, a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, said he regrets publishing a paper in the journal in 2000 – one year after it was established and before he had time to realise that it was about to become a fringe platform for climate sceptics. “[E&E] has published a number of low-quality papers, and the editor’s political agenda has clearly undermined the legitimacy of the outlet,” Pielke says. “If I had a time machine I’d go back and submit our paper elsewhere.”

An out of context quote of editor Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen has it’s meaning frequently distorted, “I’m following my political agenda — a bit, anyway,” … “But isn’t that the right of the editor?” (Origin: The Chronicle of Higher Education).

This is the correct interpretation,

“My political agenda is simple and open; it concerns the role of research ambitions in the making of policy.

I concluded from a research project about the IPCC – funded by the UK government during the mid 1990s – that this body was set up to support, initially, climate change research projects supported by the WMO and hence the rapidly evolving art and science of climate modeling. A little later the IPCC came to serve an intergovernmental treaty, the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. This enshrines in law that future climate change would be warming caused by greenhouse gases (this remains debated), is man-made (to what an extend remains debated) as well as dangerous (remains debated). It became a task of the IPCC government selected and government funded, to support the theory that this man-made warming would be dangerous rather than beneficial, as some argue.

The solutions to this assumed problem were worked out by IPCC working group three, which worked largely independently of the science working group one and consisted primarily of parties interested in a ‘green’ energy agenda, including people from environment agencies, NGOs and environmental economics. This group supplied the science group with emission scenarios that have been widely criticized and which certainly enhanced the ‘danger’. From interviews and my own reading I concluded that the climate science debate WAS BY NO MEANS OVER AND SHOULD CONTINUE. However, when I noticed that scientific critics of the IPCC science working group were increasingly side-lined and had difficulties being published – when offered the editorship of E&E, I decided to continue publishing ‘climate skeptics’ and document the politics associated with the science debate. The implications for energy policy and technology are obvious.

I myself have argued the cause of climate ‘realism’ – I am a geomorphologist by academic training before switching to environmental international relations – but do so on more the basis of political rather than science-based arguments. As far as the science of climate change is concerned, I would describe myself as agnostic.

In my opinion the global climate research enterprise must be considered as an independent political actor in environmental politics. I have widely published on this subject myself, and my own research conclusions have influenced my editorial policy. I also rely on an excellent and most helpful editorial board which includes a number of experienced scientists. Several of the most respected ‘climate skeptics’ regularly peer-review IPCC critical papers I publish.”

Poptech’s meandering defence of his list is shown-up over at Skeptical Science.
(Warning : As usual, where Poptech is involved, there are a lot of posts and he goes round and round in circles using his own definitions of certain words, and calling virtually everything else ‘subjective’)

The only reason any of the that comes off as circular is due to those presenting their arguments not my replies.

I only use dictionary definitions of words. Your confusion is where a word has multiple definitions. In this case I determine the context not you or anyone else of my own words. Distorting the context of my words was attempted multiple times to create strawman arguments.

The phrase “AGW Alarm” does not have an official definition so I have provided one for the context of the list, “relating to a negative environmental or socio-economic effect of AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic.“

What do you mean, “I don’t have an exact count but hundreds”? What kind of statement is that?

* Can you provide examples of any papers you read in full?
* Where do you read these summaries? What are your sources? Be specific. Are they all blog sources? Which blogs?
* Have you documented **anything** about how you arrive at your conclusions and decisions on why a paper is included in your list?

I mean I have not kept a running total of all the papers I have read fully but it is in the hundreds.

Yes I can provide examples but I have no interest in getting into a paper by paper discussion with you on them.

I read abstracts and summaries from the various indexes that provide them such as the journal’s home page, ArXiv, Citeseer, CSA Illumina, EBSCO, Elsevier ScienceDirect, IngentaConnect, JSTOR, PubMed, SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS), SpringerLink, Refdoc and Wiley Online Library.

Unfortunately nothing I can say will be acceptable to someone such as yourself so this is a rather pointless exercise.

I love the way Poptech has ‘interpreted’ the Boehmer-Christiansen quote, i.e. he has given it the meaning he wants to, as he does with words like ‘alarm’ and beliefs like ‘this paper supports my view of what I mean by AGW Alarm…but I can’t define it anyway’.

The quote needs to be repeated, to show how politically biased E&E is :

“I’m following my political
agenda — a bit, anyway,” she says. “But isn’t that the right
of the editor?”

The answer, as is the case with any properly peer-reviewed and respected journal (i.e. NOT E&E), is ‘NO’.

That is not an interpretation but a word for word quote in her own words when asked about the quote. You can keep repeating the same thing in a desperate attempt to smear her but nothing will change her actual explanation in her own words and I will make sure people are aware of it.

Poptech — “The phrase “AGW Alarm” does not have an official definition so I have provided one for the context of the list, “relating to a negative environmental or socio-economic effect of AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic.””

AGW is a consequence of a number of theories and scientific laws and based on physical mechanisms. Are the radiative properties of the CO2 molecule “catastrophic”? Is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics “catastrophic”? Please explain.

* Define an “alarmist”.
* What are the criteria by which you define a person as an “alarmist”?
* What are your credentials in socio-economics?
* If someone saw only positive effects of AGW, what would you label them as?

I get the distinct impression that you like to wear a big hat but you got no cattle.

“The discussion of what is catastrophic is based on the interpretation of an alarmist to a negative environmental or socio-economic effect of AGW.”

Once again we have the Poptech version of words and meanings.

‘Alarmist’ ? Only Poptech knows what his own version of that means.
As for “a negative environmental or socio-economic effect of AGW”, that is spread so wide that everyone and everything (bar Poptech and some of the strange papers he includes on his little list – not most of them, mind, because he has shown here that he doesn’t really know what most of them are about) comes under it.

OK, everybody. I am glad that you are visiting my blog to discuss various issues but I think this particular thread has become a vicious cycle. I think we know where most of us stand and where Poptech stands. More importantly, here is what the United States National Academy of Sciences says:

A strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems…. Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities. (U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010)

The NAS was established by an Act of Congress that was signed by President Abraham Lincoln on March 3, 1863, at the height of the Civil War, which calls upon the NAS to “investigate, examine, experiment, and report upon any subject of science or art” whenever called upon to do so by any department of the government. The NAS position is comparable to many other international bodies of science.

There is no debate that humans are overloading the air with carbon which is trapping too much heat. The debate is how are we going to mitigate and adapt to the changing climate to minimize the associated risks.

Any further comments about whether or not humans are causing most of the modern warming will be removed.

I am glad too, as you point out in your original post, that scientists like Ayers and Santer are making themselves heard and are calling-out the deception and anti-science pervaded by certain misled/misleading individuals who represent very few others.

Skeptical Science also does stirling work in this regard and has recently been rebutting Roy Spencer, so-called lists of anti-AGW Alarm (whatever that means), and someone called J Storrs Hall, who seems to regard himself (as does WUWT, unsurprisingly) as some sort of expert in this field. There are also a continuing stream of rebuttals against just about everything Monckton has ever said about climate.

We need more experts who know what they are talking about, taking the message to the general public and to the politicians. Eventually, only those too deep into denial to be helped will be left to argue amongst themselves as everyone else moves on to tackle the problems.

You posted a criticism by yourself of ONE specific skepticalscience article, and apply that to everything?

Well, then consider this my refutation of your nonsense. Let it be known henceforward that anything and everything poptech has written is hereby refuted. Just applying your own standards here, poptech!

Those were not made by a member of the climate science research community nor have they been published. It is not his job to monitor the Internet and refute every random blog that makes a post criticizing him.

My comment was in relation to what you posted not the satellite issues which have been corrected.

When you get Spencer’s comment on those blog posts let me know and I will be glad to read it. Like I said, it is not his job to monitor the Internet and refute every random blog that makes a post criticizing him.

It appears Poptech conveniently ignores that this particular criticism is of a BOOK that Spencer wrote. At best “pal-reviewed”, if reviewed for scientific content at all. And if it WAS reviewed, that reviewer must feel really stupid.

It’s in these cases where exposing the reviewer might actually be useful: show who has been unable to catch the embarrassing errors, and let him/her explain why he/she did not catch that error.

Look mate, they debunked his book. Whether Spencer, now a director of the infamous George C. Marshall Institute, bothers to look or not is irrelevant. But the idea that he won’t be aware of the debunkings is ridiculous and you’re simply acting as a self-appointed guardian for naff science.

I apologise, Scott, for such a bad smell shifting from my blog to yours.
You are correct – discussing this subject with Andrew is nothing but a vicious cycle, or as I prefer, a merry-go-round. As far as he’s concerned he’s right because he’s right because he’s right.
The fundamental conflict is his personal belief that there isn’t strong confidence within the scientific community regarding AGW. He also fails to understand that no-one with scientific training would find his list at all interesting – it doesn’t matter that such papers exist, it matters where such work sits in our understanding. By his logic, we should never question other peoples work and try to break-the-mould of current ideas or risk such people making a religion out of such “contrarian” hypotheses.
He is so entrenched in his mantra that I have to disagree with you Hank – Andrew is not a bot (although he does cut-and-paste a hell of a lot), but merely a parrot. Talking back, as you would to a parrot, means that he squawks yet again the same lines.
My major hope is that some of his readers (for he is quite beyond reason) wake up to the cheapness of his list through the number of critical reviews and my own, unified counter-list.
Again, I am sorry that Adam tracked you down (he’s also tried to post our email exchange on another person’s blog) and that you have had to endure such nasty ignorance.

There is no consensus in the scientific community regarding AGW and certainly none regarding AGW alarm.

You have stated an outright lie as I have been personally contacted by many scientists with extensive credentials who find the list incredibly valuable.

Where something sits in someone’s understanding is purely subjective.

Every criticism of the list has been completely refuted due to them being based on either outright lies, misinformation or strawman arguments. Any legitimate criticisms have been corrected.

Your silly “counter-list” is absolutely irrelevant to anything. No credible skeptic is claiming there are no peer-reviewed papers that mention “anthropogenic global warming”. The fact that it is frequently claimed by alarmists that there are thousands of “papers” supporting their position in the IPCC report makes your list redundant.

All ridiculous posts like yours do is INCREASE the number of people to my side as they can see through your nonsense. The fact is in the ever increasing web hits to the list.

Since the scientists you “know” does not represent everyone with scientific training we can safely confirm your statement to be a lie,

“He also fails to understand that no-one with scientific training would find his list at all interesting”

Your papers do not represent a unified anything because it is not a report. Again that is irrelevant to my list and cannot be a “counter” to it, which doesn’t even make any sense. My list is countering that these papers do not exist. You are stating the obvious which is not being disputed. So it is a silly exercise on your part and does nothing to my list.

I am not sure how I “exposed” myself as I have always openly stated I do not support AGW Alarm. Your inability to properly understand what someone explicitly states shows you lack any sort of valid scientific training. I have repeatedly corrected your blatant misrepresentations of what I said.

“Since the scientists you “know” does not represent everyone with scientific training we can safely confirm your statement to be a lie”

How can it be? I know plenty of scientists and plenty seem to have a good chuckle over the importance of your list. Of course I don’t know everyone – what a stupid argument. Cheers, btw, for ignoring my question; please provide examples of, “I have been personally contacted by many scientists with extensive credentials who find the list incredibly valuable.” that we can verify, not only their support, but their qualifications.

“My list is countering that these papers do not exist.”

Um, what scientist has claimed that such papers never existed? This seems a silly point. Please provide the scientific claim that such papers do not exist.

“So it is a silly exercise on your part and does nothing to my list.”

No; my list is a resource and one that supports the various elements behind the AGW theory and relevant environmental concern. That much is clear to anyone will a fully functional brain.

“Your inability to properly understand what someone explicitly states shows you lack any sort of valid scientific training.”

No – I just laugh at your flimsy argument which relies on placing “alarm” on the end which is just as pathetic as Pete Ridley’s tacking on of “catastrophic”. If either of you had any interest in the science, you wouldn’t resort to “judgement values” to reinforce what is at heart a really weak argument.

What seems interesting is the effect of taxing CO2 in Australia. This will have the effect of raising the price of energy intensive industries in Australia as compared to neighboring China and India. Over time, these industries will leave Australia for India and China, result in less CO2 production in Australia. However, as India and China produce more CO2 per unit of energy than does Australia, there will actually be a net increase in CO2 worldwide. Because CO2 is well mixed, the net effect of CO2 taxes on Australia will be a net increase in CO2, largely imported from China and India on the wind. In effect, the unintended consequences of CO2 taxes in Australia will be higher CO2 levels globally.

Only if India and China take no further action to (a) reduce the energy density of their production (an explicit policy target for both nations) and (b) do not introduce their own carbon price (as at least China is likely to soon).